Grounds for disciplinary

proceedings against lawyers

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Arellano University School of Law Arellano Law
Foundation
2015-2016

Supreme Court is neither bound by the

findings of the IBP

Respondent must know that the Court is neither bound by the

findings of the IBP nor, much less, obliged to accept the same as a
matter of course because as the Tribunal which has the final say on
the proper sanctions to be imposed on errant members of both
bench and bar, the Court has the prerogative of making its own
findings and rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than
that of the IBP, OSG, or any lower court to whom an administrative
complaint has been referred to for investigation and report.
Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614. June 29, 2000

Continuous display and use of the title

Attorney-at-lawafter disbarment

Complainant claims that respondent misrepresented himself as an

"Atty." in the wedding invitation of his son, and a signboard
hanging outside the respondent's office display the title
"Attorney-at-Law under respondent's name.
Lastly, complainant informs the Court that she had received
reports that respondent continues in the practice of law by
making other lawyers sign the pleadings that he prepares for
cases involving his clients. Resolution A.C. No. 4500 (Ban Hua
U. Flores vs. Enrique S. Chua) SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Resolution

On this matter, the Court is of the view that the title "Atty." preceding
respondent's name in his son's wedding invitation, and the signboard
outside his office bearing his name and the words "Attorney-at-Law"
are not evidence sufficient to convince this Court that
respondent continues in the practice of law, in violation Court's
Decision dated April 30, 1999 that ordered his disbarment.
Neither is the Court swayed by the complainant's allegations of
respondent's continuous practice of law based on mere "reports."
Without more, these reports are pure hearsay and are without
evidentiary value.
Nonetheless, respondent is hereby ORDERED to remove the signboard
outside his office showing his name and the words "Attorney-at-Law.
- Resolution A.C. No. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores vs. Enrique S.
Chua) SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Guidelines to be observed in the matter of the

lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the
practice of law
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the
practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is
immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15
days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof.
The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and
executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file
a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar
Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice
of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or
her suspension;
5

Cont
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter
of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent
has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has
appeared as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents
compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer
under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe
punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted. - Maniago v. Atty.
De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

Lifting of a lawyers suspension

is not automatic

The lifting of a lawyers suspension is not automatic upon the

end of the period stated in the Courts decision, and an order
from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is
necessary in order to enable [him] to resume the practice of his
profession. Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March
30, 2010

Supreme Court can choose not to refer

complaint to IBP

In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests

upon the complainant. Administrative complaints that are
prima facie groundless as shown by the pleadings filed by the
parties need not be referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for further investigation. They may be summarily
dismissed for utter lack of merit.
The Court normally refers administrative cases to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Considering, however, that the question being
raised is simple and that no further factual determination is
necessary, the Court resolves to dispense with such referral and to
decide the case on the basis of the extensive pleadings already on
record, which all show the lack of merit of the Complaint. Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, A.C. No. 4700 [2000]
8

Confidentiality

Rules of Court Rule 139-B Sec. 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings

against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the
final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases.

Rules of Court Rule 140 SEC. 12. Confidentiality of proceedings.

Proceedings against Judges of regular and special courts and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be
private and confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of
the court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the
Office of the Court Administrator. - A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC RE:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF
COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES [took
effect on October 1, 2001]
9

Suspension of attorney by CA and RTC

Rule 139-B Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or

Regional Trial Court. - The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may
suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in Rule
138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

Rule 139-B Sec. 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial
Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. - Upon such suspension,
the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to
the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full
statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of
such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full
investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the
suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant.

10

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of

Court, as amended by Supreme Court
Resolution dated February 13, 1992

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds

therefor.A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for:

1. any deceit,
2. malpractice,
3. other gross misconduct in such office,
4. grossly immoral conduct,
5. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
6. for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice,
7. for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so.

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
11

Judgment of a foreign court is only

prima facie evidence

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar

by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground
for disbarment or suspension. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No.
793 [2004]

12

The basis of the foreign court's action must

include any of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension in this jurisdiction I

It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Court's judgment

ordering Maquera's suspension from the practice of law in Guam
does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in
the Philippines.
Under Section 27,34 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
acts which led to his suspension in Guam are mere grounds for
disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if
the basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the
grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793 [2004]

13

The basis of the foreign court's action must

include any of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension in this jurisdiction II

In Maquera, we emphasized that the judgment of suspension

against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the
Philippines as the acts giving rise to his suspension are not
grounds for disbarment and suspension in this jurisdiction.
Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may transmute
into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if
the basis of the foreign courts action includes any of the
grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
We likewise held that the judgment of the foreign court merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer. Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006

14

Defenses
The Maquera ruling is consistent with Rule 39, Section 48, of the Rules of
Court which provides:
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment
or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to
render the judgment or final order is as follows:
xxxx
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a

want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697
July 25, 2006

15

Ex parte investigation valid

Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only

constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera's unethical acts as
a lawyer. More fundamentally, due process demands that he be
given the opportunity to defend himself and to present
testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an
investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court. Said rule mandates that a respondent
lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges against him. It is
only after reasonable notice and failure on the part of the
respondent lawyer to appear during the scheduled
investigation that an investigation may be conducted ex
parte. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793 [2004]

16

Misconduct pertaining to another

profession

Respondent is a CPA-lawyer who is actively practicing both professions. He

is the senior partner of his law and accounting firms which carry his name.
He is charged for allowing his accounting firm to represent two creditors of
the estate and, at the same time, allowing his law firm to represent the
estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented.
Respondent advances the defense that assuming there was conflict of
interest, he could not be charged before this Court as his alleged
misconduct pertains to his accounting practice.
Even granting that respondents misconduct refers to his accountancy
practice, it would not prevent this Court from disciplining him as a
member of the Bar. The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended
or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor. - Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040
[1998]

17

Respondent lawyer cannot hide behind

the corporate veil

This Court holds that respondent cannot invoke the separate

personality of the corporation to absolve him from exercising
these duties over the properties turned over to him by
complainant. He blatantly used the corporate veil to defeat his
fiduciary obligation to his client, the complainant. Toleration
of such fraudulent conduct was never the reason for the creation of
said corporate fiction. - Cordon v. Atty. Balicante, A.C. No. 2797
October 4, 2002

18

Judgment from the RTC not needed in IBP

investigation

The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not
respondent did contract a bigamous marriage, a matter which
apparently is still pending with the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City. It is enough that the records of this administrative
case sufficiently substantiate the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that
indeed respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a
married woman, grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of
an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his
profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably unfit
and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his
license confers upon him. - Tucay v. Atty. Tucay, A.C. No. 5170
[1999]

19

Marrying in good faith a married lawyer

not immoral

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that

respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs.
However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui,
clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid
marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary
action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is, it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree. - Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio,
A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000

20

A single member of a collegial court cannot

be charged for rendering unjust judgment

Thus, we have held that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a collective decision is
unjust cannot prosper. Consequently, the filing of charges
against a single member of a division of the appellate court is
inappropriate. - Bautista v. Ass. Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid,
Court of Appeals, A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-97-CA-J, May 2, 2006

21

Anonymous complaints

Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution. They

should not be dismissed outright, however, where their averments
may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be
substantiated and established by other competent evidence. Sinsuat and Paps v. Judge Hidalgo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2133,
August 6, 2008

22

Forum shopping

Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not

to disbarment proceedings. - Quirino Tomlin II v. Atty.
Salvador N. Moya II, A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006

23

Retirement from office

The Court emphasizes at this point that respondents retirement

from office does not render the present administrative case
moot and academic; neither does it free him from liability. Since
complainant filed the case when respondent was still in the
service, the Court retains the authority to investigate and resolve
the administrative complaint against him. - City of Cebu v. Judge
Gako Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-08-2111, May 7, 2008

24

Infraction committed by judge before

appointment

This step finds support in Heck v. Santos where the Court held that
while the infraction was committed before the respondents
appointment as judge, the Court may still discipline him
therefore. RE: Application for retirement/gratuity benefits
xxx., A.M. No. 12535-ret., April 22, 2008

25

Acquittal of respondent of the criminal

charge is not a bar to administrative
proceedings .

The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not

a bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of
legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables
one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal law. Moreover, this
Court, in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different
capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case
(Italics in the original). (Joselano Guevara v. Atty. Jose Emmanuel
Eala, A.C. no. 7136, August 1, 2007)

26

Administrative complaint against a

member of the bar does not prescribe

Indeed, we have held that an administrative complaint against a

member of the bar does not prescribe. (Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty.
Renato L. Gonzalez, A.C. no. 6634, August 23, 2007)

27

Indefinite suspension

This, we are empowered to do not alone because jurisprudence

grants us discretion on the matter but also because, even without
the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that if we have
authority to completely exclude a person from the practice of
law, there is no reason why indefinite suspension, which is
lesser in degree and effect, can be regarded as falling outside of the
compass of that authority. The merit of this choice is best shown
by the fact that it will then be left to [respondent] to determine
for himself how long or how short that suspension shall last.
For, at any time after the suspension becomes effective he may
prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice
of law. - (In re: Atty Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654 February 18,
1970 )

28

Censure or reprimand

Censure or reprimand is usually meted out for an isolated act of

misconduct of a lesser nature. It is also imposed for some minor
infraction of the lawyers duty to the court or the client. - Cynthia
Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204 [2007]

29

Kissing complainant on the lips not

grossly immoral

Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on

the lips, the same was not motivated by malice. We come to this
conclusion because right after the complainant expressed her annoyance
at being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message,
respondent immediately extended an apology to complainant also
via cellular phone text message. The exchange of text messages between
complainant and respondent bears this out.
Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there
were several people in the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is
a major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious
designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or
a more remote place where he could freely accomplish the same.
All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondents acts are not
grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or
suspension. - Cynthia Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, A.C.
No. 7204 [2007]
30

Non-injured party can file a complaint

The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to

clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining
suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for
judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charge. The
evidence submitted by complainant before the Commission on
Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and recommended
sanctions. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No.
313. January 30, 1998

31

Alternative penalty not allowed

A note and advice on the penalty imposed in the resolution is in

order. The dispositive portion thereof provides that:

x x x Respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for three (3) years and is hereby directed to return the Fifty
Thousand Pesos he received from the petitioner within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of this resolution. Failure on his part to comply will result
(i)n his DISBARMENT.

In other words, it effectively purports to impose either a 3-year

suspension or disbarment, depending on whether or not
respondent duly returns the amount to complainant. Viewed from
another angle, it directs that he shall only be suspended,
subject to the condition that he should make restitution as
prescribed therein. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD
A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998]

32

Cont

Dispositions of this nature should be avoided. In the imposition

of penalties in criminal cases, it has long been the rule that the
penalty imposed in a judgment cannot be in the alternative, even if
the law provides for alternative penalties, not can such penalty
be subject to a condition. There is no reason why such legal
principles in penal law should not apply in administrative
disciplinary actions which, as in this case, also involve punitive
sanctions. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No.
313. January 30, 1998]

33

Misconduct as a government official

As a general rule, a lawyer who holds a government office may

not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in
the discharge of his duties as a government official. However,
if that misconduct as a government official is of such a character
as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar
on such ground. Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995.
Noveernment officialmber 27, 1996

34

Disbarment or suspension in a foreign

jurisdiction

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar

by a competent court or other disciplinary agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated
[Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court]. - Velez v. Atty. De
Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006

35

Res judicata does not apply in

administrative proceeding

The doctrine of res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasijudicial proceedings and not to the exercise of the [Courts]
administrative powers.- Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995.
November 27, 1996

While respondent is in effect being indicted twice for the same

misconduct, it does not amount to double jeopardy as both
proceedings are admittedly administrative in nature. - Dinsay v.
Atty. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995. November 27, 1996

36

A finding of grave misconduct in the

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE would not be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
respondent in a criminal proceeding
The

issue in the FALSIFICATION CASE is whether or not the

SHERIFFS had unlawfully and feloniously made an alteration or
intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning in
violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Dinsay v. Cioco
and Atty. Belleza, A.M. No. R-252-P December 12, 1986

37

Definition of Unprofessional conduct

Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the

rules on ethical code of his profession or which is unbecoming a
member of that profession. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No.
6697 July 25, 2006

38

Indirect contempt does not involve

moral turpitude

The act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt does
not involve moral turpitude.
In this case, it cannot be said that the act of expressing ones
opinion on a public interest issue can be considered as an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity. Respondent De Vera did not bring
suffering nor cause undue injury or harm to the public when he
voiced his views on the Plunder Law. Consequently, there is no
basis for petitioner to invoke the administrative case as evidence of
respondent De Veras alleged immorality. - In re: Petition to
Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003

39

No final judgment yet

On the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent

De Vera while he was still practicing law in California, he explained
that no final judgment was rendered by the California
Supreme Court finding him guilty of the charge. He
surrendered his license to protest the discrimination he suffered at
the hands of the investigator and he found it impractical to pursue
the case to the end. We find these explanations satisfactory in
the absence of contrary proof. It is a basic rule on evidence that
he who alleges a fact has the burden to prove the same. In this
case, the petitioners have not shown how the administrative
complaint affects respondent De Veras moral fitness to run for
governor. In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No.
6052. December 11, 2003

40

Sexual relations between two

unmmaried and consenting adults

Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and

consenting adults are not enough to warrant administrative
sanction for illicit behavior. The Court has repeatedly held that
voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are not
married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and
where no deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an
unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment or
disciplinary action.
While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and, to a
certain extent, private conduct, it is not within our authority to
decide on matters touching on employees personal lives ,
especially those that will affect their and their familys future. We
cannot intrude into the question of whether they should or should
not marry. - Abanag v. Mabute, A.M. No. P-11-2922, 2011
41

Estrada v. Escritor case

Respondent, court interpreter in said court, was investigated for

living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child
within this live-in arrangement. Complainant believes that [the
court interpreter] is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the
image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain
employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her
act. Consequently, respondent was charged with committing
"disgraceful and immoral conduct. - Estrada v. Escritor, A.M.
No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

42

Cont

She admitted that she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.
without the benefit of marriage more than twenty years ago
when her husband was still alive but living with another woman.
She also admitted that she and Quilapio have a son. But as a
member of the religious sect known as the Jehovahs Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, respondent asserted
that their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their
religious beliefs and has the approval of her congregation.
Invoking the religious beliefs, practices and moral standards of
her congregation, she asserts that her conjugal arrangement
does not constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct for
which she should be held administratively liable. - Estrada v.
Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651
August 4, 2003

43

Cont

Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these distinct
circumstances, respondents conjugal arrangement cannot be
penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the
law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.
The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order
that freedoms - including religious freedom - may be enjoyed. In
the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man
stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so
the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that
its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also
protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state
interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651
August 4, 2003

44

Penalties imposed in administrative

cases [judiciary] are immediately
executory

We stressed that when suspension is "to take effect

immediately", this Court means that the period of suspension
should commence on the day respondent judge receives notice
of the decision suspending him from office.

While this does not preclude the filing by respondent judge of a

motion for reconsideration, the filing and pendency of such a
motion does not have the effect of staying the suspension order.
Dr. Alday v. Judge Cruz, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530. February 4, 2002

45

Penalties imposed in administrative

cases [of lawyers] are
NOT immediately executory

Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately

executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within
which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of
said motion shall render the decision final and executory. Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

46

 Res Judicata applies

The Investigating Commissioner properly dismissed the

complaint in this case on the ground of res judicata, it
appearing that it involves the same incident and the same
cause of action as Administrative Case No. 3825. Indeed, it
appears that on August 5, 1995, the First Division of the Court
dismissed a similar complaint filed in Administrative Case No.
3835. Halimao v. Atty. Villanueva, A.C. No. 3825. February
1, 1996

47

Automatic Conversion of Some

Administrative Cases Against Justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
Judges of Regular and Special Courts

AM. No. 02-9-02-SC. This resolution, entitled Re: Automatic

Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and
Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and
as Members of the Philippine Bar.

48

Cont

Under the same rule, a respondent may forthwith be required to

comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as member of
the Bar. xxx In other words, an order to comment on the complaint is
an order to give an explanation on why he should not be held
administratively liable not only as a member of the bench but also
as a member of the bar.
This is the fair and reasonable meaning of automatic conversion of
administrative cases against justices and judges to disciplinary
proceedings against them as lawyers. This will also serve the purpose of
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary
replication of actions by treating an administrative complaint filed
against a member of the bench also as a disciplinary proceeding against

him as a lawyer by mere operation of the rule. Campos, et. al. v.

Atty. Campos, A.C. No. 8644, January 22, 2014
49

Definition of Unbecoming conduct

Unbecoming conduct applies to a broader range of transgressions

of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical
procedure or prescribed method.- ASP Jamsani-Rodriguez v.
Justice Ong, et. al.,A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J April 12, 2011

50

Unlimited grounds for suspension or

disbarment

A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any

misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as
it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character
is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of law but
also a good qualification for all members of the bar. - Manaois v.
Deciembre, A.M. Case No. 5564, August 20, 2008

51

To ensure competence after

reinstatement

Xxx in view of the numerous changes in the law since 1959,

respondent movant should offer some guarantee of his ability to
render adequate service to his prospective clients; the Court
resolved that respondent movant Carlos C. Rusiana be, as he is
hereby required, to enroll in, and pass, regular fourth year
review classes in a recognized law school. - In Re:
Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu
City. A.C. No. 270 March 29, 1974

52

SC acting as an administrative tribunal,

cannot review the trial courts decision

At the outset, it should be emphasized that this Court, acting as an

administrative tribunal, cannot review the trial courts decision.
Belga v. Buban, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1512. May 9, 2000

53

Breached of promise to marry not

subject to sanction

Complainant filed the instant petition averring that respondent

and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was
born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated
promises to marry her.

We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his

dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which should
be entered into because of love, not for any other reason.
Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997

54

Desistance cannot stop a disciplinary

investigation

The aforesaid letter hardly deserves consideration as proceedings

of this nature cannot be "interrupted by reason of desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or
failure of the complainant to prosecute the same. - Section 5,
Rule 139-B, Rules of Court

55

Presentation of convincing and

credible evidence

To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the complainants
to withdraw the disbarment case considering that they had
already presented and supported their claims with
convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated
a resolution on the basis thereof. Sps. Amatorio v. Sps. Atty.
Whelma and Francisco Yap, A.C. no. 5914, March 11, 2015.

56

Ex-parte investigation allowed

An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when

respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.
Cottam v. Atty. Laysa, A.C. No. 4834 February 29, 2000

Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court Sec. 8. Investigation. Upon

joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the
Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the
investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue
subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given
full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his
behalf and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation
shall proceed ex parte.

57

Affidavit stands in lieu complainants

testimony

As for complainants failure to testify on her own behalf, this is of

no moment. Complainants affidavit stands in lieu of her
testimony; the investigating judge even had her re-subscribe and
re-affirm her sworn statement and let the same be adopted as part
of complainants evidence. Liwanag v. Judge Lustre, A.M. No.
MTJ 98-1168. April 21, 1999

58

Disciplinary authority v. Judicial action

It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within

the disciplinary authority of the Court or whether the matter
is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the
matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of
conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority.
However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal
liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the
moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper
subject of a judicial action which is understandably outside the
purview of the Courts disciplinary authority. Felipe, et. al. v.
Atty. Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549, December 02, 2013

59

WON the money should be returned to

complainant

It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls

within the disciplinary authority of the Court OR whether the
matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. Annacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074 August 14, 2012

60

Cont

If the matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of

conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority.
However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal
liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral
fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a
judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the
Courts disciplinary authority.
Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to
the mental and moral fitness of the respondent to remain as member
of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed
to return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within
the Courts disciplinary authority. Annacta v. Atty. Resurreccion,
A.C. No. 9074 August 14, 2012

61

Sui generis principle

It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will

not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case.
Conversely, respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively.
In the same vein, the trial courts finding of civil liability against the
respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the
administrative action before this Court. Neither will a favorable
disposition in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of the
lawyer.
The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different
from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will
not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. - Gatchalian Promotions
Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017. September 29,
1999

62

Indefinite suspension

The indefiniteness of respondents suspension, far from being

"cruel" or "degrading" or "inhuman" has the effect of placing, as it
were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a
lawyer in his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving
respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of
his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct,
exhibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating his
willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of
conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and
officer of the courts.
Xxx the indefiniteness of respondents suspension puts in his
hands the key for the restoration of his rights and privileges
as a lawyer. - Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614. June
29, 2000
63

 Beso-beso is merely a form of

greeting, casual and customary in
nature

Judge Acosta's acts of bussing Atty. Aquino on her cheek were

merely forms of greetings, casual and customary in nature .
No evidence of intent to sexually harass complainant was
apparent, only that the innocent acts of 'beso-beso' were given
malicious connotations by the complainant. Atty. Aquino v.
Justice Acosta, A.M. No. CTA-01-1. April 2, 2002

64

Quantum of evidence

The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be

established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where
the charges on which the removal is sought is misconduct in office,
willful neglect, corruption, incompetency, etc. The general rules in
regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply.- OCA
v. Judge Pascual, A.M. No. MTJ-93-783. July 29, 1996

65

Quantum of evidence

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.

They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of
civil and criminal cases.

The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal

case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an
administrative case for disbarment or suspension, clearly
preponderant evidence is all that is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if
the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the
administrative proceedings. Gatchalian Promotions Talents
Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017. September 29,
1999

66

Quantum of evidence

As a rule, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in

deciding administrative cases. Only substantial evidence is
required, as clearly provided for under Rule 133 of the Revised
Rules of Evidence:

Sec 5. Substantial evidence. -- In cases filed before administrative or

quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.- Liwanag v. Judge Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ
98-1168. April 21, 1999

67

Absolute pardon

An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removes
all disabilities resulting from the conviction. In the case of In re Marcelino
Lontok, the Court, in dismissing the disbarment proceeding against the
respondent therein, who had been convicted of bigamy, a crime involving
moral turpitude, upon the ground that the respondent had been granted
plenary pardon for his crime, applied the rule that "a person reaches both
the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender;
and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of
existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent
as if he had never committed the crime," and, "if granted before
conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities, and restores
him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man and gives
him a new credit and capacity. - In re:Atty. Rovero, A.M. No. 126
December 29, 1980

68

Application of Res Ipsa Loquitor

doctrine

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose its
authority upon erring judges whose actuations, on their face,
would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or
misconduct. Atty. Macalintal v. Judge the, A.M. No. RTJ-971375 October 16, 1997

69

Preventive suspension for erring lawyer

Rule 139-B Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court. After receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period
therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of
the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the
Investigator, may suspend an attorney from the practice of his
profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27,
during the pendency of the investigation until such
suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court .

70

CA or RTC may suspend an attorney

Rule 139-B Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals

or Regional Trial Court. - The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial
Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the
causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the
Supreme Court in the case.

71

Thank you for your attention!!

72